With all due respect, this feels like a bad-faith argument. I think it's pretty clear what has been communicated by multiple people over the past few weeks ... to reiterate: While all models will remain playable (per CB proxying rules), not all game profiles will remain. This means that someone who bought a certain subset of CB miniatures because of the associated game profiles and their relevant gameplay/style isn't happy when those game profiles and gameplay are removed. IMHO, that isn't a particularly controversial or unclear understanding of this situation. Obviously, the angst over this situation could be eased by CB making a simple, firm affirmation that all of the OOP sectorials will receive some minimum baseline of rules to remain playable (with some semblance of their characteristic game style) in N5. The fact that such a statement wasn't made, and the subsequent confirmation that the OOP sectorials (Acon, CHA, etc.) won't receive any rules consideration at the outset of N5 makes for understandably upset CB patrons. The hyperbolic strawmanning of people's (again, IMHO) legitimate concerns isn't helpful. Obviously, no one is concerned that CB is going to smash their OOP miniatures. Ironically, by removing preferred gameplay options from paying customers, CB has smashed some people's game enjoyment. Sunsetting some sectorials might be the best thing for the health of the game. There may not be an easy way to rip off that band-aid. However, I think all of those negatively impacted would be much better served by some level of commiseration and patience. It's unfair to dismiss their concerns out-of-hand. I'm not clear on your role with CB (I know you've had at least a tangential relationship via BoW), but it would go a long way to have an (semi-)official acknowledgment of customer concerns with some minimal effort to address them.
Nah man. No matter what they do it will not be enough. Better to forge ahead. At some point players will have to decide if the play Infinity and roll with it, or if they only played Varuna (or whatever).
I agree—ultimately, affected players will have to decide how to proceed. It won't serve anyone to dwell in the negativity long term. Since N5 hasn't even dropped yet, I'd say folks are still within a reasonable window to work through the stages of grief involved here. My point was just that there have been some pretty dismissive replies to people expressing reasonable concerns. It would behoove CB to manage this communication/transition better.
Dismissive replies is probably just as much due to the toxic environment of the forums (which CB absolutely should take more responsibility for) and also a reaction to the sky-is-falling attitude that has been pervasive during all of the changes CB has made. That reasonable concerns about certain armies future disappear is unfortunate. My main point is that CB have communicated clearly what is happening: These armies are in N5 from the start. These other armies are not. We don’t know if and when they will be back. Can CB do more, yes. Would doing more take precious resources away from something else, yes. Would doing more satisfy players who feel wronged, probably not. Personally I think CB, rightfully adopts a communication strategy that it is better to say little and perhaps surprise people down the road than to promise something that is subject to change (everything is subject to change). Look how they dropped N5 on us with only a few months heads up instead of a year. And STILL there’s a stink when it is delayed a couple of weeks.
What stink? I mostly just remember a three-page discussion on whether this all counts as "rushed", funnily enough almost nobody actually seemed annoyed by the delay beyond a few people asking if there might be a few more previews to keep hype up.
"Can CB do more, yes. Would doing more take precious resources away from something else, yes. Would doing more satisfy players who feel wronged, probably not." This is where you lose me. I would suggest that the resources required to clarify both the future of the game and the reasons/conditions for the removal of 8 armies out of 42, would be very well spent. A lot of people are quite shaken by recent events - partly by this decision in the first place, but perhaps more by the bad way that CB have handled this process, which has only been exacerbated by N5's delay, unfortunately. Small games always have and always will rely – existentially – upon the enthusiasm and loyalty of their player base. I can think of no greater way of eroding enthusiasm and loyalty that by shit-canning lots of players' armies, whilst using muddy (or non-existent) communications about a big swerve in development strategy and sunsetting products. I offer myself as a case study. I think generally I'm a level-headed and constructive contributor to this forum. I often push back against negativity, and point out the virtues of CB and Infinity. In person I've played for nearly a decade; I'm the organiser for Infinity in Norwich, a city in the UK, where I put on around 4-5 events a year, help new players learn the game, am an active painter and hobbyist, and a general ambassador for the game. I also buy a lot of product, and have bought and fully painted 8 or 9 armies. I attend lots of tournaments across the UK. In short, I'm the kind of person you really want playing your game with loyalty and enthusiasm. The transition to N5 has really damaged my mental image of CB and Infinity. Thousands of hours and pounds spent on four armies will now be made arbitrarily pretty irrelevant, and what is worse, I'm left with a familiar feeling from my experiences with GW. Those feelings are what led to me leaving their game systems altogether, and advocating against them, because thousands of hours and pounds had been made arbitrarily pretty irrelevant, because of a business strategy. I am struggling to parse a difference here, and thus I am struggling to continue to play my previous role as an ambassador/teacher/organiser for the game. The main difference seems to be the line of conciliation both companies have offered: "Don't worry, you can still proxy those models" vs "don't worry, we will still support those models' rules via Legends". Both conciliations offer some kind of continuity, just in a heavily reduced form. Both try to minimise the retiring of beloved armies through get-arounds that don't address the concerns of many of the owners of those armies. Both offer a route for other players to challenge the outrage these players are feeling, by pointing to the conciliation and saying "what's the problem here? CB/GW have been extra kind and allowed you to continue using models in some way. You're being unduly negative." Now some of the above reasoning may be right, and some may be incorrect, and distorted by the feelings I now have about my favourite game. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to try and demolish what I've said. The point here is that either a) I'm correct, and CB has made some very poor decisions that have damaged their relations with lots of their players, or b) I'm incorrect, and that misunderstanding has been allowed to brew and grow over the past three months, in a total absence of explanation. Either way, this represents a very poor allocation of resources, as it threatens the enthusiasm and loyalty of their player base.
